Search

Objective: Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) has been used for diagnosis of small intestinal diseases. However, the radiation dose is a big problem. This study was to investigate whether CARE Dose 4D combined with sinogram‐affirmed iterative reconstruction (SAFIRE) can provide better image quality at a lower dose for imaging small intestinal diseases compared to MSCT. Methods: The noise reduction ability of SAFIRE was assessed by scanning the plain water mold using SOMATOM Definition Flash double‐source spiral CT. CT images at each stage of radiography for 239 patients were obtained. The patients were divided into groups A and B were based on different tube voltage and current or the image recombination methods. The images were restructured using with filtered back projection (FBP) and SAFIRE (S1–S5). The contrast noise ratio (CNR), CT Dose index (CTDI), subjective scoring, and objective scoring were compared to obtain the best image and reformation parameters at different stages of CT. Results: Twenty‐six restructuring patterns of tube voltage and current were obtained by FBP and SAFIRE. The average radiation dose using CARE Dose 4D combined with SAFIRE (S4–S5) reduced approximately 74.85% compared to conditions where the tube voltage of 100 kV and tube current of 131 mAs for patients with MSCT small intestinal CT enterography at plain CT scan, arterial stage, small intestine, and portal venous phase. The objective and subjective scoring were all significantly different among groups A and B at each stage. Conclusions: Combination of CARE Dose 4D and SAFIRE is shown to decrease the radiation dose while maintaining image quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In order to comprehensively determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 (PI-RADS V1) and PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS V2) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis.Materials and Methods: The literatures were screened from the databases, including the Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to January 20th, 2020. The meta-analysis was conducted by Meta-DiSc and quality assessment was performed by using the QUADAS. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), as well as receiver operating curve (ROC) related to diagnostic accuracy were pooled.Results: A total of 6 articles containing 814 participants (379 patients) were included in the study. For PI-RADS V1, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77- 0.85), 4.58 (95% CI: 2.55-8.22), 0.24 (95% CI: 0.18-0.34) and 24.00 (95% CI: 10.38-55.51). With regard to PIRADS V2, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84), 4.34 (95% CI: 1.98-9.49), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.08-0.32) and 33.39 (95% CI: 15.05-74.05), respectively. Furthermore, except that the sensitivity of PI-RADS V2 was significantly greater than that of PI-RADS V1 (P = 0.027), there was no remarkably difference in other indicators for the diagnosis of PCa between the two versions.Conclusion: Both PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 showed good diagnostic performance for PCa diagnosis; moreover, there was no difference in the diagnostic effect between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In order to comprehensively determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 1 (PI-RADS V1) and PI-RADS version 2 (PI-RADS V2) in prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis., Materials and Methods: The literatures were screened from the databases, including the Pubmed, Embase, Web of science and Cochrane Library up to January 20th, 2020. The meta-analysis was conducted by Meta-DiSc and quality assessment was performed by using the QUADAS. Furthermore, the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), as well as receiver operating curve (ROC) related to diagnostic accuracy were pooled., Results: A total of 6 articles containing 814 participants (379 patients) were included in the study. For PI-RADS V1, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.85), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77- 0.85), 4.58 (95% CI: 2.55-8.22), 0.24 (95% CI: 0.18-0.34) and 24.00 (95% CI: 10.38-55.51). With regard to PIRADS V2, the combined sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.84-0.91), 0.81 (95% CI: 0.77-0.84), 4.34 (95% CI: 1.98-9.49), 0.16 (95% CI: 0.08-0.32) and 33.39 (95% CI: 15.05-74.05), respectively. Furthermore, except that the sensitivity of PI-RADS V2 was significantly greater than that of PI-RADS V1 (P = 0.027), there was no remarkably difference in other indicators for the diagnosis of PCa between the two versions., Conclusion: Both PI-RADS V1 and PI-RADS V2 showed good diagnostic performance for PCa diagnosis; moreover, there was no difference in the diagnostic effect between them.